Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocate w Mr. Davinder Kumar, Advoca for & Anr. v. State of Punjab and ab” vide which while issuing N ng Notice & Ors.

Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocate w Mr. Davinder Kumar, Advoca for the petitioner. cate with dvocate Mr. Manmeet Singh Teji, AAG Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Tehsilda i, AAG Punjab assisted by ehsildar, Phagwara. NIDHI GU HI GUPTA J. (Oral) Prayer in this petition is f is for initiation of contempt proceeding eedings against the respondents for ts for not complying with the interim ord order dated 25.9.2024 (Annexure P xure P-2) passed by a co-ordinate Bench of h of this Court in CRM-M-48062 8062-2024 titled as “Parvinder Singh and h and another vs. State of Punjab and ab and others” vide which while issuing N ng Notice of Motion, proceedings b ings before the trial Court were ordered to red to remain stayed.The said CRM RM-M-48062-2024 has been filed by the by the accused/respondents no.2 and and 3 herein, seeking quashing of the Kala e Kalandra based on Rapat No.10 date 0 dated 13.4.2024, under Section 145 Cr.P.C Cr.P.C. at Police Station Satnam atnampura, Phagwara, District Kapurthala rthala, in which the accused had bee ad been summoned by the SDM VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.30 14.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-4379-2024 (O & M) 2 Phagwara. wara. The petitioner herein, is the com the complainant in the said Rapat No.10 date 0 dated 13.4.2024. It is submitted by learned cou ed counsel for the petitioner that in utter vi tter violation of the order dated 25 ted 25.9.2024, the learned Sub Divisional sional Magistrate, Phagwara vide vide order dated 26.9.2024 (Annexure exure P-4) i.e. on the very next dat xt date itself had dismissed the Kalandra u ndra u/s 145 Cr.P.C. presented by th by the police in the above said Rapat No.1 t No.10 dated 13.4.2024 filed by the y the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that in view of the stay of furth f further proceedings granted by this Court, Court, the learned Sub Divisional M onal Magistrate could not have proceeded eeded with the matter. It is submitted itted that a perusal of Annexure P-3 shows shows that the order dated 25.9.202 .9.2024 was downloaded by the petitioner o ioner on 26.09.2024 itself at 12:14:57 14:57; and as categorically stated in paras 9 a ras 9 and 10 of the present contempt p empt petition, the said order dated

25.9.2024 .2024 was duly conveyed to the o the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. istrate. Despite the above said facts a facts and despite the fact that the order dated r dated 25.9.2024 was conveyed to the to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, yet he has d e has dismissed the Kalandra; which hich therefore amounts to willful disobedienc edience of order dated 25.9.2024. It It is accordingly prayed that contempt p empt proceedings be initiated against gainst the respondent no.1/SDM wara. Phagwara. On the other hand, ld. co counsel for the State, on instructions uctions from Shri Jaswinder Singh, T ngh, Tehsildar, Phagwara, states that the ord the order dated 25.9.2024 (Annexure exure P-2) was not conveyed to respondent ndent No.1. It is submitted that respo t respondent no.1 has the utmost VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.30 14.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-4379-2024 (O & M) 3 respect and ct and regard for all directions by t s by this Court, and there is no question of tion of any disobedience thereof. It is is categorically reiterated that the Kaland ndra was dismissed as the order order dated 25.9.2024 was not conveyed t eyed to the respondent no.1. Heard. Perusal of the order dated 2 ated 26.9.2024 (Annexure P-4) shows that s that the petitioner Talwinder Singh Singh is a resident of England; and the pr the present litigation, including the g the proceedings in the Rapat No.10 date 0 dated 13.4.2024 are being pursu pursued through his Power of Attorney h rney holder, Karamjit Singh. The orde e order further reveals that there is long-sta standing dispute regarding posses possession of land between the petitioner ioner, his brothers and sisters, and now now the respondents no.2 and 3 as well; well; leading to filing of numerous F rous FIRs - as many as 7 FIRs - between th een the parties. The learned SDM Phag Phagwara has passed a detailed order in th in the presence of Karamjit Sing t Singh/learned counsel for the petitioner ioner. It is nowhere mentioned that the hat the order dated 25.9.2024 was conveyed t eyed to the Sub Divisional Magistrate istrate. A bald statement has been made by le by learned counsel for the petition etitioner that the said order was ‘handed ov ded over’ to respondent No.1; which i hich is not even accompanied by any affidav ffidavit of the person who had purpor urportedly handed over the order dated 25.9

25.9.2024 to the respondent no.1 no.1.Thus, there is nothing on record to in rd to indicate that that was indeed so. ed so. Even a statement has been made by l by learned counsel for the State, State, on instructions from Shri Jaswinder inder Singh, Tehsildar, Phagwara t ara that no such order dated

25.9.2024 w .2024 was handed over to respondent ndent No.1. Learned counsel for VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.30 14.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP-4379-2024 (O & M) 4 the petition petitioner is also unable to convince nvince this Court regarding the maintainab tainability of the present contempt pet pt petition. In view of the above noted fac ted facts, no contempt, as alleged, is made out de out. Accordingly, the present conte t contempt petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, if any, shall stand(s) disposed of. ember 26, 2025 September Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2025.09.30 14.04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document